CR.A/563/2002 of STATE Vs BABU RAM on 28 December 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 563 of 2002.

Decided on: December 28, 2009.

_____________________________________________________

State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Babu Ram. …..Respondent.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J.

Whether approved for reporting[1]?No. For the appellant : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent :Mr. Shivender Singh, Advocate, vice Mr.Rajesh Verma, Advocate.

____________________________________________________________

SURINDER SINGH, J (oral):

The respondent was a Block Officer in the Forest Department. He was put on trial and acquitted vide detailed judgment dated 10[th] May, 2002, passed by Learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, in short “the Act”, allegedly demanding Rs.500/- as bribe from PW11 Hari Singh, for the release of his fuel wood, which was seized while transporting it in the tractor. The State has challenged his acquittal in this appeal.

Shri Ram Murti Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record, in the right perspective and the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

mis-appreciation of evidence has caused the material prejudice. He further argued that the acceptance of illegal gratification stands proved on record and the learned trial Court has wrongly brushed aside the statements of the prosecution witnesses on the flimsy grounds.

I have examined the above submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General and have carefully reappraised the evidence on record. On scanning the evidence, I do not subscribe to the view of the learned Deputy Advocate General and find the acquittal justifiable.

The prosecution story in brief, is that on 28[th]

December, 1995, PW11 Hari Singh, a local resident of village Mann, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, was found transporting fire wood of ‘Chil’ tree in a Tractor bearing registration No.HP-21-1955 to his village at 5 p.m. Said tractor was being driven by Ranvir, its owner-cum-driver. Tractor aforesaid was intercepted at the place known ‘Baghera’ by the respondent, Block Officer posted in Kangoo Block. Since the respondent could not produce any document with respect to permission etc, as such, the tractor alongwith fire wood were seized and damage report Ex.PW5/A was chalked out.

With respect to the tractor in question, the matter was compounded by its owner Ranvir next day, i.e. on 29[th]December, 2005, after making the payment of Rs.2,000/- and his tractor alongwith trolley was released to him. It is alleged that the complainant Hari Singh made the payment of Rs.500/- as damages to compound the offence regarding fuel-wood to the respondent and asked the complainant to transport the fuel wood in the same tractor trolley. But, on 5.1.1996, the respondent is alleged to have demanded Rs.500/- more from PW11 for releasing his fuel wood. On 6.1.1996, the respondent again insisted upon him to pay Rs.500/- more as D.F.O. was not agreeing to release the fuel wood. The receipt with respect to the amount of Rs.500/-, which was already paid and received by the respondent was not issued to him. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith PW10 Ranjeet Kumar went to Police Station, Anti Corruption Zone, Hamirpur and lodged FIR Ex.PW10/A. The investigation of the case was taken up by PW12 Sarwan Kumar, the then Inspector (Vigilance). He associated PW2 Govind Ram, Superintendent as an independent witness from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur.

The Investigating Officer gave the demonstration as to how the phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate would act by mixing both the contents. The demo solution which turned pink was sealed in a nip. The complainant produced the currency notes of Rs.500/- which were in the denomination of Rs.100/- each. Memo Ex.PW2/A to this respect was prepared, wherein the numbers printed on the currency notes were recorded. The said currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the complainant. Except the aforesaid currency notes, the complainant was not having any other currency notes with him. The Complainant was told to hand over the currency notes to the respondent on demand. He was also instructed not to shake hands with the respondent. PW10 Ranjeet Kumar was associated as a shadow witness, who was instructed to pass over a signal to the police as and when the treated currency notes would be accepted by the respondent, by raising his hands over his head.

The raiding party proceeded towards village Kangoo in the official vehicle of Anti Corruption Department. The said vehicle was parked behind the rest house. PW11 Hari Singh complainant and shadow witness PW10 Ranjeet Kumar were sent to the office of respondent. The respondent was found sitting in his lawn. The money was paid and on passing over the signal to the police party by Ranjeet Kumar, they raided the house of the respondent. Both the arms of the respondent were caught hold by PW12 Inspector Sarwan Ram. Thereafter a glass, a plate as well as a Jug of water were arranged. His hands were washed and on adding the solution of sodium carbonate in the hand wash, it turned pink. It was put in a nip Ex.P1, which was sealed with seal impression ‘H’ and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. The currency notes found in the possession of respondent were recovered which tallied with the numbers mentioned in memo Ex.PW2/A. The currency notes were put into an envelope Ex.P2 and sealed with the same seal and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Site plan Ex.PW12/A of the trap site was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded on the spot.

The hand wash of the respondent was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report is Ex.PW12/D. The documents with respect to appointment and posting of respondent were obtained and on completing the challan, it was presented in the court, for the trial of the respondent for the aforesaid offence.

The respondent was put on trial and acquitted by the learned trial Court, on the grounds that the circumstances on record show that the respondent never demanded a sum of Rs.500/- as bribe from the complainant, but his defence stood probablised that it was paid towards compensation having been imposed for releasing of the fuel wood to the complainant, to which he had transported in the tractor trolley without permit, which was already released to its owner on the receipt of the amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation. It was also observed that the complainant was not prepared to make the payment of Rs.500/- as compensation amount, rather, he requested the respondent for reducing the said amount, to which he did not agree, thus, the possibility of lodging a false case against him cannot be ruled out.

PW11 Hari Singh, complainant admitted having carrying the fuel wood in the tractor, which was intercepted by the respondent on 28[th] December, 1995 and also that the tractor and fuel wood were seized. On 29[th] December, 1995, the tractor was released on making the payment of Rs.2,000/- as compensation by its owner Ranvir to the respondent. But, according to him, he had paid Rs.500/- as compounding fee, to the respondent, but he did

not release his fuel wood, nor issued the receipt to him, therefore, he approached again on 5.1.1996, for release of fuel wood and also re-visited on 6.1.1006, but the respondent demanded Rs.500/- more from him for releasing the fuel wood. Thereafter, he narrated the entire story to PW10 Ranjeet Kumar and asked him to accompany him to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur. On 8.1.1996, both of them visited the office of Dy.S.P. (Vigilance), Hamirpur and lodged a report Ex.PW10/A.

Although PW10 Ranjeet Kumar testified that the complainant Hari Singh had approached him on 8.1.1996 and informed that the tractor impounded by the forest officials was released to its owner by paying Rs.2000/-, as compounding fee but the respondent demanded Rs.500/- from him for releasing his fuel wood, for which complainant was not prepared to part. He nowhere stated that the complainant had told him that he had already paid an amount of Rs.500/- to the respondent and he was demanding Rs.500/- more. PW10 was declared hostile and he was contradicted with his statement from portion ‘D’ to ‘D’ of statement Ex.PW10/A, to this effect to which he denied. This has caused suspicion on the very inception of the story as propounded by the complainant, which is the main base of acquisition.

Further the complainant stated that when the police party had taken him to the rest house and they stayed at a distance, then, he alongwith shadow witness PW10 Ranjeet Kumar went to the office of the respondent. Respondent was sitting outside in the courtyard of his office-cum-residence. He demanded the bribe money from him for releasing the fuel wood, which was paid to him in the form of treated currency notes. Shadow witness gave a signal to the trap party and the trap party reached on the spot. The hands of the accused were secured by the police officials and the currency notes, which were in the hands of respondent were kept by him on a bench and the hand wash was taken in a plate and on adding the solution it turned pink, which was sealed on the spot, however, he admitted that a case against him for not making the payment of compensation for releasing the fuel wood was pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hamirpur. He also stated that the fuel wood was released to him after the marriage of his daughter but, he denied that he refused to pay the compensation amount being excessive. In cross-examination, PW11 Hari Singh stated that some officers of the respondent were also accompanying the respondent, who had directed him to impound the tractor loaded with the fire wood and release the same after realizing the compensation, whereas, PW2 Govind Ram, Superintendent associated from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, an independent witness had materially contradicted the prosecution story. He stated that the currency notes of Rs.500/- were taken out by the Inspector of police from the pocket of the Pant of the respondent. After declaring him hostile when cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he again stated that the currency notes were not taken out from the pocket of the Pant of the respondent, but the same were in the hands of the respondent and then in the cross-examination, he gave another story that the currency notes were lying on the table of the respondent, which were picked up by the police Inspector.

Conclusion

Contra, the shadow witness PW10 Ranjeet Kumar stated that when they reached the spot, the currency notes were handed over by the complainant of his own to the respondent without making any demand by the respondent. He also admitted that the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.500/- for releasing the fuel wood and there were about 5-6 persons sitting when Rs.500/- handed over to the respondent. He also stated that the currency notes were not lying on the Bench. He testified that the fuel wood belonged to the complainant and its compensation was to be realized from him by the Forest Department.

PW8 Parkash Chand, Range Assistant stated that, if the compensation is received in part then the same is not entered in the cash book, unless full payment of compensation is received and deposited in the Treasury vide treasury challan.

PW6 J.S. Walia, Conservator of Forests, stated that the respondent had only taken Rs.500/- as compensation before the date of according the sanction to prosecute Ex.PW6/A.

After examining the entire evidence on record, I do not find that the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no independent witness with respect to the demand of bribe amount from the complainant. The immediate witness to whom the complainant is alleged to have disclosed is PW10 Ranjeet Kumar, but he does not whisper even a word about it. Further the shadow witness Ranjeet Kumar also stated that when the respondent was sitting outside in his compound, he did not raise the demand, but it was the complainant himself who gave treated currency notes of his own. According to respondent, this was the amount, which was required to be paid by the complainant as a compounding fee. It was also explained by the respondent that he told the complainant to collect the receipt later as he had to go to the doctor to take medicine.

Therefore, in view of the explanation of the respondent and also the circumstances pointed out herein above, there is no independent, reliable and convincing evidence on record, to prove the charge against the respondent.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find anything to convert the acquittal of the respondent into conviction, as the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record. As such, the appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.

The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of the case.

Send down the records.

December 28, 2009. (Pds)

(Surinder Singh),

Judge.